Grammatical relations in Movima
Alignment beyond semantic roles
Movima (isolate, Bolivia) has two transitive constructions: direct/ergative and inverse/accusative. The most straightforward argument selector is relativization. Relativization selects the P of the direct and the A of the inverse construction, which, in each case, is the argument whose referent ranks lower on scales of person, animacy, and topicality. In terms of constituency, this is the “external” argument, and it aligns with S. Certain oblique-marked arguments can be relativized as well, so relativization is a test to distinguish oblique arguments from adjuncts. Other constructions that privilege the external argument are demonstrative fronting and argument incorporation – although the latter is restricted to the direct construction and therefore also to the P argument. Two constructions select an argument on the basis of its semantic role: possessor ascension privileges P, and imperatives, which participate in the direct/inverse alternation, privilege A. Other cross-linguistically typical argument selectors do not seem to show a preference for a particular argument or semantic role: reflexives, coordination, embedding, and quantifier floating.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.The basic clause and its components
- 2.1The direct-inverse system
- 2.2Formal properties of argument encoding
- 2.3Obliques: Adjuncts or oblique arguments?
- 2.4Argument encoding in embedded clauses
- 3.Argument selectors privileging the external argument
- 3.1Headed relative clauses, detransitivization, and negation
- 3.2Verbal RPs
- 3.3Pronoun fronting
- 3.4Wh-questions
- 3.5Oblique arguments? Evidence from relativization
- 3.5.1Relativization of non-core arguments
- 3.5.2Relativization of applied arguments
- 3.6Fronted demonstratives
- 3.7Argument incorporation
- 4.Argument selection based on semantic role
- 4.1Possessor ascension
- 4.2Imperatives
- 5.“Neutral” constructions
- 5.1Reflexives
- 5.2Coordination
- 5.3Embedding
- 5.4Floating quantifiers
- 6.Conclusion
- Symbols and abbreviations in glosses
-
Notes
-
References
References (30)
References
Aissen, Judith. 1999. Markedness and subject choice in Optimality Theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 17(4): 673–711.
Bickel, Balthasar. 2011. Grammatical relations typology. In The Oxford Handbook of Grammatical Relations, Jae Jung Song (ed.), 399–444. Oxford: OUP.
Citko, Barbara. 2004. On headed, headless, and light-headed relatives. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22: 95–126.
DeLancey, Scott. 1981. An interpretation of split ergativity and related patterns. Language 57(3): 626–657.
Dixon, Robert M.W. 1972. The Dyirbal Language of North Queensland. Cambridge: CUP.
Dixon, Robert M.W. 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge: CUP.
Dixon, Robert M.W. & Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 1997. A typology of argument-determined constructions. In Essays on Language Function and Language Type. Dedicated to T. Givón, 71–113, Joan Bybee, John Haiman & Sandra A. Thompson (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Foley, William. 1998. Symmetrical voice systems and precategoriality in Philippine languages. Paper presented at the 3rd LFG conference, Brisbane, 30 June–3 July.
Haspelmath, Martin. 2005. Argument marking in ditransitive alignment types. Linguistic Discovery 3(1): 1–21.
Haude, Katharina. 2006. A Grammar of Movima. PhD dissertation, Radboud University Nijmegen.
Haude, Katharina. 2009a. Hierarchical alignment in Movima. International Journal of American Linguistics 75(4): 513–532.
Haude, Katharina. 2009b. Reference and predication in Movima. In New Challenges in Typology: Transcending the Borders and Refining the Distinctions, Patience Epps & Alexandre Arkhipov (eds), 323–342. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Haude, Katharina. 2010a. ‘She kisses her late husband’ = ‘she kissed her husband’: nominal tense marking in Movima. In Rara & Rarissima: Documenting the Fringes of Linguistic Diversity, Michael Cysouw & Jan Wohlgemuth (eds), 95–116. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Haude, Katharina. 2011b. Argument encoding in Movima: The local domain. International Journal of American Linguistics 77(4): 559–571.
Haude, Katharina. 2012. The expression of three-participant events in Movima. Linguistic Discovery 10(3): 80–96.
Haude, Katharina. 2014. Animacy and inverse voice in Movima: A corpus study. Anthropological Linguistics 56(3–4): 294–314.
Haude, Katharina. 2018a. Nonverbal predication in Movima. In Nonverbal predication in Amazonian Languages [Typological Studies in Language 122], Simon Overall, Rosa Vallejos & Spike Gildea (eds), 217–244. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Haude, Katharina & Zúñiga, Fernando. 2016. Inverse and symmetrical voice: On languages with two transitive constructions. Linguistics 54(3): 443–481.
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 2005. Tagalog. In The Austronesian Languages of Asia and Madagascar, Alexander Adelaar & Nikolaus Himmelmann (eds), 350–376. London: Routledge.
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 2008. Lexical categories and voice in Tagalog. In Voice and Grammatical Relations in Austronesian Languages, Peter Austin & Simon Musgrave (eds), 247–293. Stanford CA: CSLI.
Kaufman, Daniel. 2009. Austronesian nominalism and its consequences: A Tagalog case study. Theoretical Linguistics 35(1): 1–49.
Keenan, Edward. 1976. Towards a universal definition of ‘subject’. In Subject and Topic, Charles N. Li (ed.), 305–334. New York NY: Academic Press.
Kroeger, Paul R. 1993. Phrase Structure and Grammatical Relations in Tagalog. Stanford CA: CSLI.
Schachter, Paul. 1976. “The subject in Philippine languages: Topic, actor, actor-topic, or none of the above. In Subject and Topic, Charles N. Li (ed.), 491–518. New York NY: Academic Press.
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1988. Voice in Philippine languages. In Passive and Voice [Typological Studies in Language 16], Masayoshi Shibatani (ed.), 85–142. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Silverstein, Michael. 1976. Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages, Rober M.W. Dixon (ed.), 112–171. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.
Zúñiga, Fernando. 2006. Deixis and Alignment. Inverse Systems in Indigenous Languages of the Americas [Typological Studies in Language 70]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Cited by (3)
Cited by three other publications
Haude, Katharina
2021.
Clefting and nominal predication: Two focus-marking constructions in Movima.
Faits de Langues 52:1
► pp. 117 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.